Besmonte v. National Police Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A buy-bust operation was conducted by Police Officers (PO2) Herminio A. Besmonte, Gil Anos, and Junnifer Tuldanes, targeting Evangeline Abenojar for alleged illegal drug peddling. According to the police officers, the buy-bust transaction was consummated, and upon arrest, Abenojar resisted, prompting the officers to restrain her. Abenojar, however, claimed that the police officers attempted to extort money from her and, upon her refusal, physically harmed her, citing a Medical Certificate showing swelling and tenderness on her left cheek and groin area. A Temporary Medical Certificate from another hospital noted no external physical injury. Procedural History: Abenojar filed a complaint for Grave Misconduct against Besmonte and the other officers. The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) upheld the buy-bust operation but found Besmonte liable for grave misconduct, meting out the penalty of one rank demotion. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed Besmonte's guilt but modified the penalty to dismissal from the service. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC's decision. The Petition: Besmonte filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that Abenojar failed to prove her claim by substantial evidence, that there was no corroborative evidence of his culpability, that he merely employed reasonable force, and that the penalty of dismissal was unjust given his service record.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of Grave Misconduct against petitioner Herminio A. Besmonte, and whether his actions constituted Grave Misconduct or Simple Misconduct. Whether the penalty of dismissal from the service is the appropriate penalty for the misconduct committed by Besmonte, considering the classification of the misconduct.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. The Court affirmed the finding of misconduct but modified the classification from Grave Misconduct to Simple Misconduct, and consequently, modified the penalty from dismissal to suspension for six (6) months. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2021 and the Resolution dated March 28, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 161581 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Herminio A. Besmonte is found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and is ORDERED suspended from office for a period of six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of misconduct: The Court found that while Besmonte admitted to hitting Abenojar, he failed to explain how the punch to her face and kick to her groin were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, thus upholding the finding that he used excessive force. However, the Court clarified that for misconduct to be considered 'grave,' it must be accompanied by elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule. The discussions by the NAPOLCOM, CSC, and CA focused on Besmonte's lapse in judgment in using excessive force but did not establish the presence of these elements. Therefore, Besmonte's transgression was classified as Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. On the appropriate penalty: The Court distinguished between grave misconduct and simple misconduct in terms of penalties. Grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service, while simple misconduct, being a less grave offense, carries a penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Given that Besmonte was found guilty of Simple Misconduct, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the CSC and affirmed by the CA was deemed too severe. The Court modified the penalty to suspension from office for a period of six (6) months, aligning it with the prescribed penalty for simple misconduct.
Main Doctrine
While the use of excessive force during an arrest constitutes misconduct, it may only be classified as simple misconduct if the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule are not manifest. The penalty for simple misconduct, unlike grave misconduct, does not necessarily warrant dismissal from the service.